Will the KC-46 be incorporated into BMS?
This is a difficult question. The better question is, Will the KC-46 be incorporated into real life?
Will the KC-46 be incorporated into BMS?
This is a difficult question. The better question is, Will the KC-46 be incorporated into real life?
If you donāt mind me asking, Radium, is there any particular reason the 'G wonāt be done? Iām asking from a purely neutral standpoint, of course. I understand you have many projects!
At first I was like, āThat sounds like Perturbator,ā and then I confirmed that it was in fact Perturbator.
War and hopes for war are horrible, so instead of going down that path, I suggest someone seriously consider repainting the Korean campaign to resemble Nolo Sobre (Brigador). Also, add more dark synth.
Hereās an applicable article from The Drive with information on the Ching Kuo and its armament:
Cool.
https://github.com/search?q=mig+alley
ā¦Any pointers on which is the proper jumble of text to look at (aside from what is most recent)? Not that I have any real idea of what Iād be doing, but Iāve been having a 1950ās fighter bend recently.
Necroing this thread:
Where do I find the source code for the sim, and what is the license for the code?
Just curious about projects like this - do you fellows have some sort of GPL agreement going on here?
For instance, if you improve their model or assets, do you hand the new assets back to them so that they can make their own work better, etc? It would be nice to know that the different communities are helping each other to make everything better for everyone involved.
I think youāre more than likely correct, however, itās an interesting thought exercise. The mission profile of the J-20 is most certainly long-range intercept and interdiction.
Very cool! Does it have a gun?
Well, Radium has already said, āno,ā but I started to wonder where it might be if it does in fact have one in reality. The underside of the fuselage seems unlikely. Furthermore, one of the few areas they have left to mount a cannon is the upper surface of the airframe - note that this is also the case with Western aircraft. That said, take a look at the following images: you will see asymmetrical paneling on the upper airframe surface, above the engine intakes. Note the long panel over the right engine intake. Not sure what the current Chinese cannon inventory is, but that might be where itās hiding a gun if it carries oneā¦
Note now the location of the F-22ās M61:
Many A/A guns are angled a few degrees upward, so you might get adequate clearance for firing from the right upper intake surface?
I find the smartphone comment amusing.
People, for better or worse, tend to be unkind to what they donāt understand. For instance, I have limited space available for hobbies and projects, so Iād understand not being a fan of a homepit. They also can cost a fortune (also something Iām lacking), so thereās another thing that could be griped at. But the technical and artistic achievement of them can often be truly impressive. So, if you have the means, why not?
Likewise, for the ladies in question, Iām certain that they had their own āfrivolousā pursuits which only they could comprehend as worthwhile. What makes reading about these matters saddening is that a compromise apparently could not be made.
ā¦But then, I donāt know. Iām convinced women donāt like me. Eff this stupid life.
By the way, I laugh every time I see your signature image, Ara.
What limits the size or contents of the database in general? I just read a few brief documents, and it seems XML is far from ideal.
So, I have a question from the perspective of an outside guy:
āThe database seems to be an item of contention when it comes to what the sim can by default feature and do. How is the database structured, at least in laymanās terms? How would the database need to be restructured if, in the future, it is rebuilt or revised? Is there a way to make a dynamic database, somewhat like a āvectorā in C or C++, that does not have āsizeā or dimension restrictions?ā
ā¦Iāve just read several things in the past about the database, so I figured I would ask in a more direct, formal fashion. I always enjoy these conversations, as even though Iām not a great or even good coder, I really enjoy the subject, if only from the perspective that I would like to know more about the subject matter.
You know, I canāt tell you why, but I find the green, glowing CRTs in the B-52 cockpit quite amazing.
I refuse to go with Windows 10 due to the telemetry garbage. If I have to download 3rd party software to prevent MS from receiving data from my machine, itās a no-go. Preventing me from controlling my machine how I want to control it is also is a no-go. I realize there are security risks at all points in time, but a few bad updates in the past with very few issues related to NOT updating does not encourage me to continually subject myself to the threat of software or even hardware breaking.
ā¦In all honesty, there are things about 10 I think I would in fact appreciate. I really like 8.1 Pro, and Win 10 apparently is not too much different. But, it comes along with all the extra bloat that Iām not going to stand for. Just my perspective on the matter.
I love the Sturmvogel! In fact, I have a poster of that very aeroplane in my room. Might have to fire up X-Plane or Il-2 this weekend to give it another spin, in factā¦
ā¦Or you could just install games the normal way by getting it from GoG and putting an end to your dilemma entirely!
Wow, thread derailment achieved!
ā¦Next, youāre great, Molni, and I truly mean that.
However, we are both students of history. You cannot look back on programs like the afore-mentioned F-111 and F-35 and tell me that they were great, efficient, and without major developmental problems. Both of those aircraft, along with other wonder-do-alls like the F-105, eventually turned out to be good, if not very good, aircraft. Itās not a very smooth or fiscally-responsible road, however. The F-111, upon its debut in Vietnam, was so terrible it had to be removed from the theater. When it was eventually permanently retired from the US and Australia, it left a capability gap that has still not been completely filled. I love the F-111, but it started out as a boondoggle. The F-111B is an uncomfortable reminder of how inefficient the concept of āstreamliningā the inventories of various air arms can be. This is not to say that streamlining cannot be done: the F-4 and the A-7 were both fantastic airframes in that mold. The sauce that made them successful in that area was a little bit different from the F-111, however. Note that drastic airframe changes were not required to make them functional for the purposes of the different services (and no, I would not count the addition of the M61 on the F-4E as a drastic change), namely because both of those aircraft started out as naval fighters.
So, concerning the F-35: I have never said that it was a bad aeroplane, and have generally contended that it would ultimately end up as a very good aeroplane (just like the F-111). But, it is a case of history rhyming rather than repeating itself. This time, it seems that a single airframe, which is more like three rather different ones (unlike the F-4 and A-7 examples from earlier), will suit the needs of the various services well. But, did that āstreamliningā really yield any results in terms of cost-effectiveness or efficiency? Those were the primary selling points, after allā¦
Therefore, when I come at this subject from the lens of history, I donāt see any lack of logic. Iād say that the physics tangent sounds to be a bit of a red herring from my perspective. But then, for better or worse, people are addicted to their own versions of reality, so there you goā¦